ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

A very thoughtful article about the casting choices in Star Trek Into Darkness

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 30 2013, 2:43 am

Personally, I don't hear hostility in Bunkey's posts. He/she just has strong opinions.


To be honest, my experience of this board is that the defenders of JJ Abrams vision ( I do not include fireproof78 in this) are much ruder, hostile and more readily resort to personal insult that those that criticise it.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:06 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 29 2013, 7:29 pm

>It seems to me that you find a conspiriacy theory behind everything that Abrams and Co. do.

>I get that you don't like the movie, or Abrams or this new Trek, but there is an underlying hostility that I honestly cannot place.

>I have agreed with you that the racism is bad, but, as Catholic.Fan so artfully put it, the message you are trying to convey is lost due to the hostility in your statements.

>I'll not justify Abrams decision but I'll not condem them either except to say, I'm disappointed and will make contact with respective companies.

>The hate I'll leave to others


The fact that they avoided revealing a white man cast as an Indian has been noted by severalmedia websites, not just me.  Racebending, Jezebel and several other sites all noted that it seemed "convenient". This is not something that I just came up with.


You say I find "conspiracy" in "everything" Abrams does. Please provide an example of other so called "conspiracy" I supposedly accused Abrams of.  If you're going to accuse me of something, then please, back it up with examples or cease generalizing me because I am adamant about one particular topic. Other posters have demanded facts to back up general statements about NuTrek.  I suggest you provide facts to back up what you just said.


I appreciate your willingness to contact them, but at the same time, the constant need to place negative labels on me are getting old and the motives more transparent as time goes on.  


If I'm "hostile", that is because this topic pisses me off.  Apologists piss me off. I am not sorry for being angry. You can place my so called "hostility" right there.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:29 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 30 2013, 2:43 am

>

>Personally, I don't hear hostility in Bunkey's posts. He/she just has strong opinions.

>To be honest, my experience of this board is that the defenders of JJ Abrams vision ( I do not include fireproof78 in this) are much ruder, hostile and more readily resort to personal insult that those that criticise it.

>


If that were true, and I'm not saying it is, it would be understandable.  Many trekkies come from a background of being teased or ridiculed for thier passion.  To come to a star trek community, the flagship community as it were, and have people tell them they must be morons for liking trek (or lately racists) is unacceptable.  If they responded in kind it wouldn't be surprising 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:44 am

Wissa, who called who a moron?  Because I certainly did not.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 30 2013, 7:48 am

Quote: wissa @ May. 30 2013, 7:29 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 30 2013, 2:43 am

>

>

>Personally, I don't hear hostility in Bunkey's posts. He/she just has strong opinions.

>To be honest, my experience of this board is that the defenders of JJ Abrams vision ( I do not include fireproof78 in this) are much ruder, hostile and more readily resort to personal insult that those that criticise it.

>

If that were true, and I'm not saying it is, it would be understandable.  Many trekkies come from a background of being teased or ridiculed for thier passion.  To come to a star trek community, the flagship community as it were, and have people tell them they must be morons for liking trek (or lately racists) is unacceptable.  If they responded in kind it wouldn't be surprising 


it is true...but ok then, how about trekkies coming her and being told they're not open minded, they're not "loyal" trekkies, they're overly critical, they're haters, they're hostile, just because they didn't like the new movie

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 30 2013, 8:58 am

Quote: willowtree @ May. 30 2013, 7:48 am

Quote: wissa @ May. 30 2013, 7:29 am

Quote: Somniac @ May. 30 2013, 2:43 am

>

>

>

>Personally, I don't hear hostility in Bunkey's posts. He/she just has strong opinions.

>To be honest, my experience of this board is that the defenders of JJ Abrams vision ( I do not include fireproof78 in this) are much ruder, hostile and more readily resort to personal insult that those that criticise it.

>

If that were true, and I'm not saying it is, it would be understandable.  Many trekkies come from a background of being teased or ridiculed for thier passion.  To come to a star trek community, the flagship community as it were, and have people tell them they must be morons for liking trek (or lately racists) is unacceptable.  If they responded in kind it wouldn't be surprising 

it is true...but ok then, how about trekkies coming her and being told they're not open minded, they're not "loyal" trekkies, they're overly critical, they're haters, they're hostile, just because they didn't like the new movie


I think people coming onto a trek board and hating on trek should really expect a little hostility.  


It's really a shame.  Any real conversation about the movie or issues in the movie almost instantly devolve into hate filled rants.  The level of hostility from some people make it impossible to have any normal conversations 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 30 2013, 9:03 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 30 2013, 7:06 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 29 2013, 7:29 pm

>

>It seems to me that you find a conspiriacy theory behind everything that Abrams and Co. do.

>I get that you don't like the movie, or Abrams or this new Trek, but there is an underlying hostility that I honestly cannot place.

>I have agreed with you that the racism is bad, but, as Catholic.Fan so artfully put it, the message you are trying to convey is lost due to the hostility in your statements.

>I'll not justify Abrams decision but I'll not condem them either except to say, I'm disappointed and will make contact with respective companies.

>The hate I'll leave to others

The fact that they avoided revealing a white man cast as an Indian has been noted by severalmedia websites, not just me.  Racebending, Jezebel and several other sites all noted that it seemed "convenient". This is not something that I just came up with.

You say I find "conspiracy" in "everything" Abrams does. Please provide an example of other so called "conspiracy" I supposedly accused Abrams of.  If you're going to accuse me of something, then please, back it up with examples or cease generalizing me because I am adamant about one particular topic. Other posters have demanded facts to back up general statements about NuTrek.  I suggest you provide facts to back up what you just said.

I appreciate your willingness to contact them, but at the same time, the constant need to place negative labels on me are getting old and the motives more transparent as time goes on.  

If I'm "hostile", that is because this topic pisses me off.  Apologists piss me off. I am not sorry for being angry. You can place my so called "hostility" right there.


I'll not go through and cherry pick quotes in order to "prove" anything. But, a casual read through of the Court thread and I noticed posts regarding fans being accused of being in denial, of ignoring racism, and telling people of color "to hell with them."


Now, if that is meant to be snarky and not serious, I apologize for taking it as such. But, the overall tone that I have felt has been one of hostility towards Abrams and nuTrek and the supporters of the new movies. I can't speak for other posters here, I simply speak for myself.


I have offered counterarguements to the opinions regarding Abrams and they are ignored or I am accused of "worshiping at the temple of Abrams."


Maybe I need thicker skin, but personally, I prefer to debate topics within the movies themselves, not just the real world issues without be accused of being ignorant, racist or dumb. If you mean these things with sarcastsic tone, a smiley face does a world of good here due to lack of facial and verbal cues in text.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 1:10 pm

When it comes to whitewashing, I will indeed point out when I believe people are ignoring it or being in denial. This is not an "agree to disagree" topic. 


But you indicated that I see conspiracy everywhere, and I want other examples outside of the whitewashing topic. 


I' should not have to defend myself for having strong opinions and sticking to them. If people call me hostile, fanatic or any of the other lovely descriptions that have been bestowed upon me by others, I take it as a sign that they cannot deal with someone who has very strong opinions and who will not be bullied off the board by others (not so much you but several others who like to turn debates personal).


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 30 2013, 8:58 am

>I think people coming onto a trek board and hating on trek should really expect a little hostility.  

>It's really a shame.  Any real conversation about the movie or issues in the movie almost instantly devolve into hate filled rants.  The level of hostility from some people make it impossible to have any normal conversations


You've accused me of having a "troll agenda" and also haven't answered my question as to who I called a moron.  So who's hostile?  I think you need to re-read some posts and see who turns things personal with name calling first.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 30 2013, 3:14 pm

 I'm paraphrasing.  The attitude of the movie is stupid, it's made for stupid people, only stupid people you like it ..... there aren't many ways to interpret that then the people who like it must be morons.  


As to a troll agenda, every thread on this board ends up about you and your pet topics.  What else would you call it?  


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 3:26 pm

I have called it a dumbed down version of Star Trek, simplistic in plot and Star Trek For Dummies (which is a turn of phrase on the Fpr Dummies book series).  I have never called anyone stupid for liking it.  Your so called "paraphrasing" is actually lies. If you feel the fact that I call the movies shallow, lacking of plot or philosophy is an attack on your own intelligence, that's your own intellectual insecurity.


 


Active participation is not trolling, my dear. I stay on topic, I don't attack people with personal insults nor do I play armchair psychiatrist or thought police.  I express myself strongly.  The fact that such strong opinions bother you does not consititue "trolling".


You and several others, on the other hand, insist on turning every hot discussion into what a terrible person you think I am and use unflattering labels and insults.  If you cannot handle a discussion without doing that,  who is the real troll, then?

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 30 2013, 3:40 pm

I don't think you are a terrible person.  I think you are trolling.  Perhaps not intentially but you are.  And you could at least be honest.  I have seen you insult many people on this board.   I am not "bothered" by strong opinions, I am bothered by open hostility and a condescending attitude.  The hypocracy of bemoaning the loss of trekkie solidarity while being so hostile to people.  I am bothered by people who are hostile and combative; and they cry about being victims and how people are trying to run them off the board when they are responded to in kind.  Why don't you try discussing issues without being so confrontational and combative.  You may find people don't respond to you the same way 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 30 2013, 3:55 pm

I'm not sure of what you think you have "seen" because there have been instances when I write something and you accuse me of saying something different, even though what I said is directly above you.


I have not insulted anyone directly and I have not personally attacked anyone nor have I broken any rules.  If I have made statements that people may take personally, such as telling someone they're ignoring racism, making excuses for it or saying STID is simplistic, I make no apologies for that.   I'm far from crying, I just point out behavior. And I will not soften my strong responses to coddle fragile feelings.  I do indeed confront people with what they have said. No apologies there, either. 


I'm just going to continue to participate in discussions while you continue to throw labels on me and turn the discussion about me rather than the topic.  So, as the kids on the internet say "deal with it".

Catholic.Fan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 76

Report this May. 30 2013, 4:09 pm

[quote]


You refuse to even consider that Hollywood ignored the history of Khan in order to cast a white man because JJ Abrams liked Sherlock.  It's sad when people refuse to have an honest dialogue about racism so that maybe something can be done about it and positive action could be taken.


[/quote]


This quote goes back a few pages, but the problem I'm seeing in this thread overall is that you seem to refuse to consider that Hollywood did not do this out of direct racial motivations.  You ask everyone here to contemplate your arguments and the content of the links you've posted, but do not seem to be willing to consider some of the opinions put forward in counterpoint.  


Now, it is ludicrous to think that a major Hollywood studio is ever going to admit to whitewashing.  There will never be a quote or an admission of guilt until years down the road.  Frankly, anyone that worked on the films that did come out and say something at this point would likely get their pants sued off for negatively affecting box-office results.  It'll be left to others to point these things out after the movie has been out for a few years, and only a few will actually care at that point because there will be other issues of the moment to deal with.


Similarly, it is ludicrous to think that a major Hollywood studio cares what a few bloggers and advocacy groups think of their film.  To suggest that obfuscation of Khan's identity was for the purpose of avoiding racial criticism is very conspiratorial.  The whole John Harrison thing was to build curiosity and interest in the new film and boost box office sales, nothing else.  Frankly, if they were indeed so worried about a potential controversy, they wouldn't have released the film in foreign markets prior to the US release.  It would have been a simultaneous, worldwide release with no press screenings anywhere to avoid any potential backlash.  That simply isn't what happened.  The movie came out two weeks overseas, accompanied by a two week media tour by the cast/crew.


Honestly, I'm not even sure what all of this is supposed to accomplish outside of a greater awareness of how racial divisions and discrimination still persist in US society.  I think sending off some letters to Paramount/Bad Robot might not be a bad idea, with the hope that there might be some sort of mindfulness in future Trek installments.  Boycotting the movie, calling fellow fans racists for still enjoying a film despite its flaws, or taking a tone that your opinion of a movie matters more than anyone else's is just downright disrespectful.

ShirtlessKirk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 61

Report this May. 30 2013, 4:20 pm

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion about whitewashing...


I'm incliined to agree with the poster who said that the whitewashing of Khan's character was thoughtlessness and/or laziness on the part of the producers.  I agree that Cumberbatch is "sexy" at the moment among a certain fan base that to some extent overlaps with the Trekker base (he's currently #2 on iMDb's Starmeter). I think they decided to rehash WOK and just didn't want to show their hand by casting a POC.  Is that 1) lazy? IMHO Yes.  I was disappointed.  Is that racist? IMHO Yes.


Why:


If you watch the extras on the 2009 STAR TREK double disc DVD set, JJ Abrams discusses at length the casting of John Cho as Sulu.  He was concerned because Cho is of Korean descent, while TOS' Sulu, George Takei, is of Japanese descent.  So, JJ called George and discussed the potential casting choice with him.


George, being a total class act, explained to JJ that Sulu was supposed to, in Gene Roddenberry's mind, represent a "pan-Asian" character, and not be from any specific country. So he gave his blessing for casting Cho in the role.


 


So, why couldn't JJ & Co have shown the same concern when casting Khan?


 


As a commentator on the io9 article excoriating the movie said, "You know that we've come a long way when a White man can play an Indian played by a Mexican man."  This would be LOL if it weren't so sad.


Montalban was a total class act, did a lot to strengthen Hispanic actors' clout in Hollywood: (from that estimable source, Wikipedia)

"


Nosotros Foundation

The way he was asked to portray Mexicans disturbed him, so Montalbán, along with Richard Hernandez, Val de Vargas, Rodolfo Hoyos Jr., Carlos Rivas, Tony de Marco, and Henry Darrow[29] established the Nosotros ("We") Foundation in 1970 to advocate for Latinos in the movie and television industry.[30] He served as its first president and was quoted as saying:[11]






I received tremendous support, but there also were some negative repercussions. I was accused of being a militant, and as a result I lost jobs.




The foundation created the Golden Eagle Awards, an annual awards show that highlights Latino actors. The awards are presented in conjunction with the Nosotros American Latino Film Festival (NALFF), held at the Ricardo Montalbán Theatre in Hollywood.[29]


I think (o shoot, this thing is now typing in bold large letters and I don't know how to make it stop, I'm not shouting ) that the least JJ & Co could have done to honor Mr. Montalban and his tremendous job as Khan would have been to consult his foundation, or at least the actors who worked with him as to the casting decision to put a White man into the role.

"


"Brain and Brain! What is Brain?"

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Starcruiser51, miklamar, DS9TREK

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum